tv PBS News Hour PBS November 16, 2012 10:00pm-11:00pm PST
captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: hamas militants fired rockets at jerusalem today, and the israeli military called up reservists and massed tanks on the gaza border. good evening. i'm judy woodruff. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. on the newshour tonight, we have an on-the-ground report from gaza city, followed by two views of the widening conflict on the third day of hostilities. >> woodruff: then, an update on the syrian war. margaret warner spent the day inside rebel-held territory. >> brown: we get a "battleground
dispatch" from megan verlee of colorado public radio. voters in that state approved a ballot initiative allowing anyone over 21 to buy marijuana. >> politicses, businesspeople and law enforcement are wondering what comes next. har >> woodruff: hari sreenivasan talks to andrew kohut about the pew center's post-election report card, with the candidates, the campaigns, and the news media getting low marks. >> brown: david brooks and ruth marcus analyze the week's news. >> woodruff: and how much did the presidential candidates spend on social media? ray suarez has some answers on the daily download. >> take a look at this, the obama campaign spent $47 million on digital sending. and the romney campaign spent 4 my 7 million. a 10 to 1 gap. >> woodruff: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:
>> computing surrounds us. sometimes, it's obvious, and sometimes, it's very surprising in where you find it. soon, computing intelligence in unexpected places will change our lives in truly profound ways. technology can provide customized experiences tailored to individual consumer preferences, igniting a world of possibilities from the inside out. sponsoring tomorrow starts today. >> bnsf railway support also comes from carnegie corporation of new york, a foundation created to do what andrew carnegie called "real and permanent good." celebrating 100 years of philanthropy at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and friends of the newshour.
>> and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> brown: there was no let-up today in the battle between israel and hamas, the palestinian group that rules gaza. air strikes echoed across gaza, and rockets landed near tel aviv and, for the first time, near jerusalem. the combined death toll reached 30-- 27 palestinians and three israelis. we begin with a report from john ray of independent television news in gaza. >> reporter: a sleepless night in gaza gave way to another morning of missiles. israel promised a lull in their assault, a chance for words to speak louder than bombs. but on neither side was there a
cease-fire. and if the egyptian prime minster came armed with a peace plan, he kept it to himself. this was far more a display of muslim brotherhood with hamas. hesham qandeel called gaza a tragedy, and israel the aggressor. the tragedy is deeply personal, and it unfolds at the gaza city hospital where they rush the dead and the injured. boys like yea, just ten years old. "i was buying bread for my mother," he says, "when the rocket came." dooah, a girl of 14, was hit my shrapnel on her way to a wedding. "all i remember is the flash of red light," she tells me. israel insists it is striking targets that are carefully selected.
this was the ministry of the interior, obliterated. israel is reducing the symbols of hamas rule to so much twisted metal and smoldering rubble, but they have not yet stopped the rockets. and while the missiles continue to fly, any chance of a cease- fire that sticks seems slim. nor is there a monopoly on suffering. more palestinian rockets hit home today, while sirens sounded in tel aviv and jerusalem, extending what israel calls a reign of terror far beyond the gaza border. >> there is one basic difference between us and our enemies-- they deliberately target civilians and deliberately hide behind civilians. and we do everything in our power to minimize civilian casualties while we exercise our legitimate right to self defense. >> reporter: israel's called up 16,000 reserve troops.
the border looks like the marshalling point for an invasion. at some time, the order must come to pull back or advance. >> woodruff: the fighting triggered protests throughout the muslim world today after friday prayers came to an end. in egypt, crowds in cairo and alexandria waved palestinian flags and chanted anti-israeli slogans. thousands of people also turned out in yemen to denounce the israeli offensive. and in turkey, a one-time israeli ally, people in istanbul called for the death of the jewish state. >> brown: and for more on the conflict, we are joined by hisham melham, washington bureau chief for al- arabiya; and dan schueftan is director of national security studies center at the university of haifa. gentlemen, one thing i think a lot of people, myself included are wondering how did this flare-up seemingly so quickly. dan schueftan. >> well, since hamas took over we had for a while a
thousand rockets per year, then came israeli escalation and-- and it went down to a small number of rockets every year, last year again we came to about a thousand rockets against israel. and this intensified in recent weeks to the point where israel had to take action. israel was saying for about two weeks, i mean people here were dealing with the elections and other things. but it was saying it must lead to a point where either it stops or we will have to take action. when it didn't stop israel took action. >> brown: what do you think happened to build telephone up? >> we have never seen quiet on the border even from 2008 until now. and a few days leading to the israeli decision to take on, assassinate a major military leader of hamas there were skirmishes and casualties on both sides. so this is really not a
total surprise. but what happened, this confrontation is taking place against a changing internal regional dynamic. this is the first-- . >> brown: you mean the much larger picture. >> absolutely. the much larger picture is that this is the first serious confrontation after the changes in egypt and the changes within the hamas leadership. the growing empowerment of hamas-- in gaza at the expense of the marginalized palestinian authority in ramallah. and you have the amir 6 qatar visiting hamas in gaza. you have the egyptian prime minister visiting today. >> brown: the kind of thing we would never have seen and we did never see. >> absolutely. now hamas is getting direct financial support from qatar, political support from turkey and egypt. on the israeli side you have upcoming election, the israeli prime minister saying essentially our deterance should be-- we should remind the palestinians once again or hamas of our deterences, we
have a longhand and that is why the decision came-- . >> brown: when you think about the can el-- cancel says on both sides, in israel the international reproach came quickly and will come even more. >> no, at the moment there is very wide support for the israeli operation. i mean the president of the united states went as far as saying that hamas must stop its fire first. there is an understanding in europe. of course the usual suspects-- . >> brown: i meant in the region, i'm sorry, you are right. >> the region is hostile to israel and is becoming more hostile to israel and that's exactly the point that hamas was banking on. the assumption that the new regime in egypt also muslim brothers and hamas is also, the palestinian muslim brothers so they assume that israel will be afraid of clashing with egypt and therefore israel will not respond even when a million israelies have to sit in shelters because their cities are being bombarded by rockets before the israeli action. i'm not speaking after. for months and months you
have had a million israelis under threat in israeli city its, and there was pressure inside israel from the population saying hey, you know, this is impossible. more than a million israelis can't suffer for so long. so the government was told by the israeli population that it must do it. and in spite of the fact that the youth would be suspected of doing it because of the elections, and the palestinians believed tha because of the elections is legal-- israel would not do t the government had to do it. >> brown: when you think about the potential for escalation, though, can either side win this? i mean what are they after? >> the grim reality of this conflict, particularly in hamas and israel is that both sides, even when they bloody each other and end up with many body bags and casualties, mostly civilian palestinians, both of them in a crazy surreal way will claim victory. this is to the going to change the political reality. even if the israelis invade gaza as they did in 2008 when they inflicted-- killed 1300 palestinians, mostly
civilian, there was no political solution. today the only thing that is still changing as i said, there is a regional strategic dynamics that are changing and domestic dynamics especially palestinians are changing, the american position is still the same and the americans say we cannot talk to hamas and therefore we're not doing anything except giving the israelies it tacit approval and support. at the end of the day this administration will need egypt, will need turkey, will need someone to talk to hamas. otherwise the israelis can buy themselves a few months of respite, a year or two and then again that grim reality will face us again and will present us with the same problem. and that's why this crisis cries out for american leadership. if there is no american leadership, it will continue. the situation in jordan is teetering right now. we have a new transition coming on in egypt. you have conflagrations within syria. the whole region is teetering and the whole region is brittle, politically and strategically.
and into the mix now the israelis come with this major operation against gaza. they cannot live in the region and claim that they are to the going to be touched by the reverberations taking place in the region. >> brown: do you see a kind of political solution? and what will the u.s. role be. >> i disagree with a lot of things that was said now. but one thing i very strongly agree. there is no political solution. and there can to the be a political solution because what you have in gaza is an organization dedicated it to the destruction of israel, dedicated to killing of jews. this is what they say openly. i mean this is not an interpretation of what they're saying. this is what they're saying. as long as the threat exists they will fight israel. they are committed to an anti-sellity-- anti-semitic of killing juice jews, it's in their charter n their document t is what they are openly saying. they are not leave israel alone regard will of what is happening. so once israel withdraws totally from the gaza strip they started shelling israeli cities.
and i also agree that whatever israel can achieve, and it can achieve quite a lot. it achieved four years of tranquillity, relative tranquillity. but only can achieve relative tranquillity for a while and then it will come up again because the hamas is committed to the destruction of the state of israel. >> brown: just a brief last word here. but you're saying it require its american leadership but do you-- do you see -- >> i don't see it happening, that's why. >> brown: it can't happen. >> no-- well, no you cannot say there is no american leadership, otherwise are you leaving the sides to their own devices and there will be more conflict and tragedies between palestinians and israelis at a time when as i said the whole region is teetering. and in the end, the israelis live in that region too. it's not in their long-term interest to allow the situation to fester. yes the egyptians will maintain the peace briefly business real. but look what is taking place in sinai. throughout the region that requires thinking that
israelis get out of their traician diddal way of thinking that just by military means we can deal with this issue. >> brown: we have to leave it there tonight, hisham melham, and dan schueftan, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: twitter and other social media sites lit up with eyewitness accounts from the middle east. but who should you trust? we offer answers online. still to come on the newshour: margaret warner on syria's war; a showdown over marijuana use; grading the campaigns; brooks and marcus; and the money the campaigns spent on social media. but first, the other news of the day. here's kwame holman. >> holman: within days, iran will be ready to double its production of weapons-grade enriched uranium. the international atomic energy agency reported the finding today. it means tehran could be within three months of obtaining enough uranium for a nuclear warhead. iran has insisted it has no plans to make nuclear weapons, but it refuses to stop its enrichment program. former cia director david
petraeus told lawmakers today it was clear early on that terrorists attacked the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. petraeus answered questions behind closed doors one week after he admitted having an affair and resigned. republican congressman peter king of new york said the general's account differed from what he said right after the attack, when the administration was blaming a muslim protest. >> the testimony today was that from the start he told us it was a terrorist attack, a terrorist-involved from the start. i told him my questions have a very different recollection. the impression we were giving was the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it was arose out of a span takenuous demonstration and was not a terrorist attack. >> holman: petraeus said today the cia blamed terrorists in its initial talking points, but that reference later was dropped to avoid tipping off suspects. u.n. ambassador susan rice used
the edited version in remarks five days after the attack. some republicans have accused her of downplaying the terror link to avoid hurting the president's re-election bid. but senate intelligence chair dianne feinstein defended rice today. >> we have seen wrong intelligence before. and it all surrounded our going into iraq. and a lot of people were killed based on bad intelligence. so and i don't think that's fair game. i think mission takes-- mistakes get made. >> holman: the benghazi attack killed u.s. ambassador chris stevens and three other americans. in afghanistan, 17 civilians were killed today when their bus set off a roadside bomb. the victims were on their way to a wedding. separately, two nato service members were killed in a roadside bomb attack in the eastern part of the country. there was hopeful talk today about avoiding the "fiscal cliff" after president obama met
with congressional leaders at the white house. a series of tax increases and spending cuts will kick in on january 1, unless the two sides can come to agreement. today, the president said action is of the essence. >> our challenge is to make sure that, you know, we are able to cooperate together, work together, find some common ground, make some tough compromises, build some consensus to do the people's business. and what the folks are looking for, and i think all of us agree on this, is action. >> holman: afterward, house and senate leaders expressed confidence they can get a deal. the president is pushing for high-income earners to pay more in taxes. and house speaker john boehner said republicans are willing to offer higher tax revenue as part of a deal. >> to show our seriousness we've put revenue on the table, as long as it's accompanied by significant spending cuts. and while we're going to continue to have revenue on the table, it's going to be
incumbent for my colleagues to show the american people that we're serious about cutting spending and solving our fiscal dilemma. >> holman: on the democratic side, senate majority leader reid promised work will continue on a deal over the thanksgiving recess. he said, "we all know something has to be done." wall street took some hope from that white house meeting. the dow jones industrial average gained nearly 46 points to close at 12,588. the nasdaq rose 16 points to close at 2,853. but for the week, the dow and the nasdaq fell nearly 2%. also today, j.p. morgan chase and credit suisse agreed to pay $417 million in a federal civil settlement. they allegedly sold mortgage bonds they knew could fail before the 2008 financial crisis. it looks like twilight for twinkies. hostess brands announced today it's going out of business, eliminating 18,000 jobs. the company makes such iconic
products as twinkies, ding dongs, and wonder bread. hostess said the final blow came when thousands of workers rejected cuts in wages and benefits and went on strike. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to judy. >> woodruff: and to an update on another conflict in the middle east, the ongoing civil war in syria. margaret warner is on a reporting trip to the region. i spoke to her a short time ago from antakya, turkey, soon after she returned from spending the day in syria. hello, margaret. this was your second trip into syria in just the last few days, what did you see in. >> warner: judy, today we spent most of the day in an area just from the west and then north from aleppo where we were seeing a lot of fighting. and this is an area that now is under the control or at least being held not by the syrian military but the rebels, free syrian army as they call it and all around you can see the signs of the devastation of the fighting that's gone on for months and months with burned out
tanks and bullet-ridden buildings and bombed out buildings, even mosques, the roads are complete down to the subbed, some of them. the other thing that has really been hurt is the infrastructure whether it's power, the lack of fuel, the lack of basic medical care, with the last hospital having been bombed out last week in this one particular area. so people are really, really struggling there. >> woodruff: and margaret, what do the people say to you they want? >> warner: well, judy, they want the world to intervene, we've heard that from everyone both on the syrian side and turkey side of the border. today we went through a town in which there was demonstration going on by some young men and boys all calling out to the arab world to pay attention to their suffering. when we went to see the head of a local administration council which is civilians trying to provide services, he said you know, the world steps in to help get rid of qaddafi, even mubarak, where are they, we need the basics of life. and we heard the same from a military commander,
colonel-- who is head of the aleppo military counsel while said, as we know, that they desperately say they need anti-aircraft weaponry to shoot down the planes that are bringing in bombs and attacking, especially civilian infrastructure to this day. >> woodruff: and so what do they say about how the west is responding to this? >> they say they feel entirely abandoned. the head of the civilian leader said to me again said you know, the west has moved in. the u.s. and the french and the british assisted other countriri when ey werere trying to overthrow dictators, why aren't they helping us. and this colonel without by the way we had to meet at a secret location, not where they said they were taking us but somewhere else because of an assassination attempt by bomb on him just a week okay, he also said he had this theory that the u.s. in particular cares pore about the security of israel, he said, than it
does about the syrian people. and in fact, had a whole theory about now the world's attention is being diverted to israel and gaza, that's just what president assad wanted. and he said, in fact, that's why they chose this moment to attack. and while it may sound like a sort of wild conspiracy theory to us, the evidence is it has diverted the world's attention. tomorrow the arab league ministers are meeting in a emergency meeting but not to discuss syria you about the israel-gaza situation. >> woodruff: well, margaret, i know your reporting trip continues. thank you and stay safe. >> woodruff: margaret's reports next week will examine tkey's support for the syrian opposition, and the war's spillover into that country. online, you can read her account of visiting refugee camps on both sides of the border, and a story about the challenges of getting aid to syrian women and girls who've been abused.
>> woodruff: and to a post-elect story. voters in two states, colorado and washington, approved ballot initiatives allowing marijuana to be used for recreational use. megan verlee of colorado public radio reports from denver, a city that currently has more medical marijuana stores than starbucks and mcdonald's combined. her story is another in our new collaboration with public media partners across the country in a series we call "battleground dispatches." >> these topicals that have marijuana, and people have said it's very helpful. >> reporter: steve horwitz sells a broad variety of medical marijuana products in his south denver store, ganja gourmet. >> there are all kinds of chocolates and cookies and brownies. >> reporter: his is just one of 500 such dispensaries which have opened over the last four years, ever since colorado started allowing stores to sell the drug for medical uses. since then, a large market has flourished, and more than
100,000 residents now carry physician-recommended cards allowing them to buy the drug. but passage of a ballot initiative known as "amendment 64" will likely take retail marijuana to a whole new level, since presumably anyone who can now buy alcohol will be allowed to buy the drug. horwitz said almost as soon as the votes were counted last week, he began to hear from potential customers. >> and then all day long, the phone was ringing off the hook. they're pot tourists. they want to come to colorado and they want to do like they do in amsterdam. >> reporter: but those would-be high fliers probably shouldn't start booking plane tickets yet. horwitz and others in the medical marijuana industry are taking the cautious approach. >> nothing is going to change until we see what the state comes up with, the regulations the state comes up with, and sees what the federal government says about the regulations the state comes up with. >> reporter: the amendment removes criminal penalties for the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by adults over 21.
but it also calls for the state legislature to determine how the drug is to be distributed, sold and taxed. lawmakers will have to do all of that, while being mindful that whatever they create violates federal drug laws. governor john hickenlooper knows passage of the amendment puts the state on a collision course with the federal government, which still regards the possession and sale of marijuana a crime. that's why one of the first steps he took last week was to set up a call with u.s. attorney general eric holder. >> he was mostly listening. he was trying to get what we thought might be issues, problems-- how we were going to respond to one part or another. so he was more in a listening mode, just gathering information. >> reporter: but colorado officials aren't just waiting for the federal response. they're putting together a task force to research the best way to create a retail marijuana system which would regulate the growing and selling of the product. the result will be introduced in next year's legislative session. despite opposing the measure, hickenlooper says he wont hinder it now. >> well, it's a democracy, right? in a democracy, when people vote for things that you may not agree with, if you're the elected leader, you've still got to implement them.
so, we're going to do that in the most responsible way we can with every cautionary procedure that we can find. but in the state of colorado, marijuana's going to be legal. >> reporter: even supporters of the measure seemed surprised by their victory. the backers were a collection of local and national groups who have tried and failed at earlier attempts for legalization. brian vicente is with sensible colorado, a group advocating for marijuana reform. >> what we are interested in doing is establishing colorado as a model for effective adult marijuana sales. we want to prove to the state and to the world that we can tax these sales, take them off the street corner. and we're talking about a tremendous amount of tax revenue that's coming out of the hands of cartels and going into our state coffers. >> what it seems like the marijuana law reform folks are doing is not try to win one big fight, but win lots of little ones. >> reporter: sam kamin is a constitutional law professor at the university of denver. he says drug reform groups have decided to concentrate on
changing state laws rather than the federal law. he says its similar to the state-by-state approach being taken by gay marriage proponents. >> one of the ideas of federalism is states as laboratories of ideas, that we find out what good policy is by trying it in some places, not all places. those people that don't want to don't have to try it. marijuana certainly seems to fit that model pretty well. >> reporter: some colorado members of congress are trying to legitimize this patchwork approach by adding a clause to the controlled substances act that would give state-level marijuana laws preemption over federal policy. >> that would give us this sort of quilt of states that, if you want the federal government to come in and enforce marijuana laws, we'll have them in. if you want to keep them out, you can keep them out through state law. we'll see what kind of traction that gets. >> reporter: one of the fears supporters have is that the drug enforcement agency could raid any store that dares to open, or the justice department could simply sue to invalidate colorado and washington's amendments. vicente says his side is ready for that.
>> we have, you know, attorneys that have worked on this for years, including myself, and we will be prepared to litigate this on behalf of colorado voters if needed. >> reporter: vicente is hopeful that the federal government will hold off and allow colorado to apply its existing medical marijuana regulations to a new recreational retail system. >> they have a very strict level of oversight which we call "seed to sale tracking." so there are cameras following the movements of these plants from seed to sale and... and ultimately then they go to the consumer. we really have found that this system has worked quite well. it really hasn't led to any increased security or criminal risks in the community. >> reporter: police commander jerry peters of the north metro task force has a very different view of what has happened since medical marijuana stores started opening four years ago. >> we have seen a tremendous increase in crime. we've seen more home invasion robberies, we've seen more dispensary robberies. you see marijuana being trafficked through vehicles,
through the u.s. mail, through federal express. >> reporter: peters says his officers in the suburbs north of denver average five to six marijuana investigations a week. and even the vast majority of the legal grow sites they go to are out of compliance. full legalization, he says, will just make that worse. >> when the state tries to regulate it, no matter whether it's going to a dispensary or a storefront, is you can't inventory it. there's nobody there at the time of harvest to say "we've taken two ounces, so that two ounces is going to this dispensary." what happens is maybe two ounces is reported, but two pounds is taken off and diverted someplace else. it happens all the time. >> reporter: in addition to potential criminal problems, peters worries about legalization's social cost. >> you're going to see youth use rise dramatically. you're going to see people driving under the influence of marijuana dramatically increase. >> reporter: colorado officials are developing what governor hickenlooper calls a sharp-edged public information campaign to
warn about the dangers of marijuana. but in the end, the governor sees legalization as a result of colorado's success in recent years at attracting an influx of younger, more liberal residents. >> this is part of what you get from that youth component that maybe isn't wouldn't be your first choice to have happen in your state. but i don't think it's going to do long-term damage. >> reporter: dispensary owner horwitz is convinced that now that voters have spoken, legalized recreational marijuana sales are inevitable. >> it's like theat's out of the bag. i don't think you could put it back in right now. >> reporter: still, he-- like everyone else in the state-- will be watching closely to see how the federal government responds. >> brown: online, you can find a slideshow of images of marijuana advocates around the country, plus watch a video profile of a denver pot dispensary. and for a different look at the election results: the newshour has teamed up with
the pew research center for a new quiz that helps you grade many facets of the 2012 presidential contest. hari sreenivasan sat down with andrew kohut recently to outline the quiz and pew's research into americans' attitudes after the president won re-election. >> sreenivasan: welcome back, andy. so there seems to be this overarching theme of pessimism from the electorate in your poll, in your research after the weekend. they're not happy about the candidate, not happy about bipartisanship, and they give the press pretty low grades as well. >> very negative about the campaign and very gloomy about the prospect for politics going forward. we have been doing this since 1988. the weekend after the election we question voters "how do you feel about what you have just experienced?" and this is not a good one. 51% said they was less discussion of issues, four years ago there were 34% said that, 68% said that it was more negative than usual compared to 54% four years ago. and then we ask the voters to
give the players grades. eachlayer got lower grad this year than four years ago. obama got a c+, he got a b 4 years ago. romney got a c, mccain got a c+, the press got a lower grade, the voters gave themselves a lower grade. four years ago they gave themselves a b; this year they gave themselves, just a c. now part of that is partisanship. it was mostly the republicans who had a lower opinion of how the voters performed, but none the less, it fit with a very negative take on this campaign. >> sreenivasan: so there is also this underlying tension between the diminishing hope in the electorate and increase in anger. >> yeah, i mean there is no question about it. a public who says, we would like to see... 67% saying we would like to see republicans work with obama and make some compromise, and we find 72%
saying that they want to see obama make some compromises with republicans. but then we ask people what do you expect, and they don't expect any... a majority say they don't expect things to get better, and 14% say they expec it to get worse. so you have 2/3 with a negative outlook. and part of it has to do with the opinions of voters themselves. republicans... only 46% of republicans, the base, wants the republican leaders to compromise with obama. the democrats are a little bit better-- 54%. but still, only 54% of the dems say obama should compromise with a republicans. so there is this tension between wanting something to succeed, and this inherent polarization that we have been tracking for so long and measuring in polls. >> sreenivasan:: does that make it more difficult when we talk about these negotiations for the fiscal cliff when both parties are going to be able to say "hey listen, my voters don't
want me to back down on this," they are going to be digging their heels in? >> it may well be and in a separate poll that we did this week, we found 51% of the public thinking that there's, this is not likely to be successful this year. >> sreenivasan:: all right. so let's shift slightly, there were tremendous amount of users that were coming, i should say audience members, that were coming to our website and we weren't alone in that - your poll says that, what was it 27% of the folks on election night were doing it on more than one screen, not just tv? >> yes, 27% use two screens or at some point looked at two different screens, maybe not simultaneously. and the percentage of people who said they got news about the campaign by the internet, just went up once again-- 21% in '04 36% four years ago, 47% this year it is clearly past newspapers, it's clearly past radio, and it's beginning to challenge television. television is only at 67% and there's no growth there in those numbers.
>> sreenivasan:: all right, this gives us and opportunity to talk about an interesting quiz that pew center and the newshour put out earlier. but we have got sort of part two, so all of this date you have compiled now, our web audience can go ahead and compare themselves by answering those exact same questions? >> yes, they can. they can go on and grade the campaign and see how their grades compare with all voters, how they compare with romney voters and obama voters. they can see if they like the debates as much as everyone else did. that's the one positive thing that stands out. and they can register their... or express their opinions about what is to come, whether there will be some progress, some political progress, and compare their outlook with the outlook of voters that we've polled. >> sreenivasan:: now the first part that we launched earlier in the election cycle, it's been fairly successful. a lot of people took those 12 questions or so that you have been asking for dozens of years and compared themselves against where they exactly are in that political spectrum.
>> we found... i think we are approaching 1 million point 4 people who have taken this test since i think we put it up in late september. >> sreenivasan:: ok and finally, you made a little bit of news this week. you are changing your roll at pew. what does that mean? >> it means i will no longer be president and chief executive. i am going to be founding director which sounds very ancient but it is what is. i am going to work on politics and global attitudes so i am not disappearing. >> sreenivasan: andy kohut thanks so much for joining us. >> thank you hari >> woodruff: you can take both the "election report card" quiz and the "political party i.d." quiz on our web site. see how you compare to voters around the country, and share your results with your friends. and to the analysis of brooks and marcus. that's "new york times" columnist david brooks and "washington post columnist ruth marcus, filling in for mark shields. welcome to you both on this friday. so david, what dow make of this negativity and andy
kohut is saying shows up in these post-election poll. >> he said 68% of the respondents thought the campaigns were more negative in the past which tells me 32% were wrong,. i think it was the worst campaign i ever covered. and i think romney was all over the place. obama ran a very negative campaign. the level of tolerated dishonesty was higher than any i ever covered. they used to start campaigns by giving big speeches on policies and people like ruth and i would chew over them. those speeches, i guess they desid they didn't need to give them because the policies weren't there the only ray of hope in the way the campaign was conducteds is the campaign especially the obama campaign is much better at door knocking, face-to-face, door front interviews. and i do think because of that and all the information that's given canvasers without say they do have a lot of actual conversations. so you could argue that it was terrible at the surface but the level of one to unperson on the door stoop,
there might have been good. >> woodruff: how do you read this negativity. >> that's really pulling out happiness from the pile. >> woodruff: i wasn't going to ling other than that point. >> so the negativity is totally justified. david mentioned 68%. the other number in there was 51% who thought there was less discussion. i don't know where the other percentage is because it was a remarkably substanceless campaign. i will give you one example . the fiscal cliff. the minute the election ended we swiv eled and said okay so, what about that fiscal cliff. where were the questions about the fiscal cliff during the campaign? i will find my own bright rays of hope because i think the voters are right in their assessment of this campaign. if anything they mig be too charitable. the first is that i think every campaign picks up where the last one left off and makes up in some ways for the failings of it. so i think we will see from
voters and from us the underperforming press, a demand for substance, from candidates those speeches that we all revel in. and also i think that the one place i do disagree with the voters is that i see a little bit more hope for compromise in the aftermath of the election than they do. you can see it and we'll get to that in some of our later discussions, and some of the rhetoric of republicans after the campaign. because what they took away and what i think both sides took away from the campaign was hearing the voters on a desire for compromise and bipartisanship. and performance. >> woodruff: wouldn't that be something for the politicians to be more positive. >> wouldn't that be something. >> woodruff: i want to ask you about the fiscal cliff if a minute. but on the campaign before i let that go, david, governor rom know had a conference call this week with his big donors in which among other things he said the reason president o bhama won this election was because big government contributions,
money spent on programs, on different democratic constituents what do you page. >> this was a gift, a gift to the republican party because it gave them all something to push against. and so a number of people like governor bobby jindal and others leapt to criticize what romney said. he said no, first of all we respect voters. we respect the decisions they make. secondly, that these programs are not gifts. and i think this is important. because one of the core arguments for the republican party this campaign was you guy you got big government and all the people are dependent on and and we should-- the idea was people are dependent on government are getting either some il legitimate things. but pushing back on romney, the undertone of what jindal and others have said is that no, government programs that help people succeed, help them rise, those are not il legitimate. those are ledge hit-- legitimate things. and i think it represents or potentially represents a way for the republican party to slightly alter their attitude about government from the crude position that
all government programs are bad to a more nuanced position that some programs actually do help people and we appreciate those programs. and so i do think it is the beginning of a shifting in the party. at least potentially. >> woodruff: how do you explain what romney said? >> well, you could go back to that 47% video. he does seem to have this view that is really fundamentally as david said, as governor jindal said, disrespectful toward the voters. it is believed that voters vote only because you dangle shiny baubles of government programs or other handouts or benefits or policies at they favor in front of them and they immediately vote in favor of that and i think voters sometimes to the frustration of democrats have voted against their economic interests, have voted against some of their own interests. voters are much more complex than governor romney was giving them no credit for. i also think it really confuses pandering and catering to voters with how-- with substantive
policymaking. governor romney will, for example, what the president did on giving of the children of illegal immigrants a way of staying in the country. and just saw it as a gimme, gift, bribe to the hispanic community. i look at t i think david probably looks at it too and thinks it is good policy, humane policy. >> woodruff: well, it's something that certainly is giving folks something to chew on for the next few days. but quickly, david, on the fiscal cliff which ruth raised a minute ago, there was some positive noise coming out of the congressional leadership today after the meeting in the white house. does it look like they could actually agree? >> i remain a pessimist on this one. you know, i do think the republicans are in a tough spot. the public is against them on raising taxes on the rich. the way the fiscal cliff is structured, they're at a severe disadvantage. they're in a spot and showing flexibility. they just lost an election. nonetheless i think the president is driving a hard war gain. his attitude and democrats attitude is they pushed us
around. we've got the advantage. let's push them back. and i think that will yield some short-term benefits. i think president obama is going to end up asking the republicans to capitulate, give them no easy path to yes. will ask them really to hugh il-- humiliate themselves to agree to tax rate increases that they have said no to again and again. nonetheless i still probably win that just because the landscape really does favor him. what it will hurt is a long-term effort to really solve our fundamental problems. raising taxes on the rich closes the deficit by a little, but not very much. we need a big solution. and if we go to a war over this, i'm afraid that will make the bigger deal which we need very hard to get down the road. >> woodruff: is that what you see happening? >>. >> well, i share some of david's concerns. and i do think that we just need to prepare ourselves on the way to the fiscal cliff. we're going to be on a fiscal roller coaster. and it's going to look absolutely terrible and dire before it gets solved if it gets solved. but there is-- there are going to be numerous moments where it looks like as if
they can't bridge the gap. it is clear that the president despite his words of conciliation that i'm open to compromise, if you have an idea bring it forward i will take a look at it, the administration is fundamentally convinced that it can't come up with the revenue that it believes it needs without raising tax rates. i, the reason i'm somewhat optimistic is i am hear-- i've been on the phone all day with senators of both parties and house members of both parties. and i'm hearing so much more flexibility from the republican side than i am-- on two ways. first, that we can have revenue and not revenue from the magic elixir of growth but real scoreable revenue, you know, from hopefully from their point of view from broadening the base. which is by the way a great idea. but also that raising-- raising tax rates is not the
republican red line that i was worried that it might be. and so i do see, i do see a path to a solution. >> you could argue they know they are capitulate at the end they might as well capitulate in the beginning. there is some possibility. i still think they are asking a lot. when we get to the ugly phase and there will be ugly phase there are two ways of doing business in washington. the boring deal making phase where it really lowers the temperature or the surface phase when it becomes an economic culture war. i'm afraid when we get into the turmoil the circus will come to town, all the talk radio people, tv people will be on a furror and then things will spin in a very bad direction. >> woodruff: quickly i want to ask you about the benghazi, the latest on ben gaddee, former cia director david petraeus went to the hill today, talked in private to two congressional committees. there is an outcry from several republicans for an investigation, david. but there is push back from others. but the other thing i do really want to get to is what is going on --
>> well, first o israel, i want to know what the israeli strategy long-term is i want to know what they think they are doing. how they're in this moment in the middle of the arab spring. how do the attacks they are doing tie into a long-term vision of some future for the middle east. i see the reason for the attack. you don't want to get the bomb but would you like to see some political vision going more than a month or two ahead. and that is absent. you have got hamas there. you want to show the nonhamas palestinians some opens so they have an-- i understand the defense, i don't understand the political strategy. >> the thing i find most interesting about what is happening in israel is what is happening in gaza is terrible for the people involved. the innocent civilians who are being killed on both sides. but the most interesting thing i think it will raise for us and how-- is what is going to be the stance of the new egyptian government. the egyptian government has
traditionally played a calming, brokering, somewhat peace-making role. what does is president morsi willing to do what does he feel he has the flexibility to doll. what can he do. and here the u.s. government can play a helpful role because there are things that egypt as with israel, there are things that egypt wants from us. not only u.s. aid, but help in getting this imf loan. and i think however this is resolved, because it's not going to resolve the long-term problem, perhaps it can help clarify hopefully in a good way the egyptian role. it could open up and just shatter that long-term linchp of stabity in the mideast between egypt and israel. >> woodruff: do you see a role for the u.s. in the short term? >> yes. in explaining quietly to egypt the essential nature of keeping the peace troty with israel and calming down the situation and probably
the same quietly for israel which has, of course, bigger news -- --. >> i would say i think syria remains the most fragile thing. the explosion of syria would spill into everything else. so our role, i don't know what our role is in syria but i have a feeling our attention will be focused wherever it is. >> woodruff: margaret's reporting was excellent tonight. the two of you were excellent, ruth marcus, david brooks, thank you both. >> brown: and finally tonight, ray suarez handles our regular look at the campaign as it played out in social media and on the web. >> suarez: for that we're joined again by two journalists from the web site daily download. lauryn ashburn is the site's editor and chief, howard kirst is host of cnn's reliable sources. well, we've been talk, for months about the new ways of doing politics during this
election season, on-line. lauryn, how much did the campaigns end up spending? >> 10 to 1 ratio. take a look at this. the obama campaign spent 47 million dollars on digital spending. and the romney campaign spent 4.7 million dollars. >> suarez: a 10 to 1 gap. do we know what the obama campaign realized i that kind of spending advantage? did they get much for their buck. >> well, he won, didn't he? >> the obama campaign believed from the start that digital was an important new area. and really had an almost he ban-- evangelical about signing people up to register to give money through facebook and twitter. the romney campaign obviously got a later start because he was not the incumbent but also i think didn't quite have the fervent belief that this deserved a lot of resources. >> suarez: the romney campaign, however, did have a computer-based modelling system like the obama campaign, called orca.
>> like the whale and it failed by all accounts. it didn't do what it was supposed to do on election day which was to get, to find out who was voting and who wasn't so they could get the supporters out to make sure that those people were voting. >> and the romney campaign did put a lot of resources into that system. and unfortunately for that side, it crashed. a lot of volunteers went home. they couldn't get the information about identifying voters. and this was supposed to be its answer to the restauranted obama ground game, the president's team that he had spent a couple years putting in place. coming back to this question of digital spending, if you go to the next graphic. look at the increase from 2008 when the president, then candidate obama sent $16 million and zooming up to 47 million dollars for 2012. >> and 2008 was supposed to be the social media campaign. and look at it now. it's continuing. and there are some questions as to whether or not 2016 will be another social media campaign or will we be on to something new.
>> suarez: now here was another example of how the obamas never stopped running. the campaign never really stopped. they just kept upping the investment in the on-line world as we proceeded through that first term. now let's talk about interactivity. because that's part of the gold standard of this, right, you don't just want cute cat pictures and people playing with their dogs. you want people engaged in electoral policy. >> and it happened. people weren't just looking at those cute kitties. they were announcing their votes on social media. if you look at the amount of oba supporters, 25% of them actually announced who they were voting for. and 20% of the romney supporters did that. almost even. so the facebook, and the twitters were able, the twitter was able-- twitterers were able to get that information out. and it encouraged their friends and family to a, vote, or to b, vote for the
candidate that their friend was voting for. >> and i think that's the key, lauryn, because we're all getting bomb barred-- bombarded by political pacs. when i see that your friend, that your followers, that your uncle were voting for president obama, voting for mitt romney. that has a subtle form of exertion. and the same study comes from pew internet group. we found out that a lot of people were lobbied on-line through social media to support one candidate or the other. there was an age split there as well. >> suarez: when you look at facebook, if you have a number of friends and they have various political beliefs, they would attach articles that they had seen, magazine pieces, tv pieces that they had seen, that they wanted you to see. so unlike an ad from nowhere, it was somebody you actually knew in real life. >> right. and i spoke to a lot of people all across the country who told me that if they didn't like what someone was saying on facebook or twitter, ding,
unfollow, unfrbd friend. and so it wound up that there is this microcosm of people who believe what you believe. so when those articles are shared, they're more likely to be read. >> i hope some of those friendships come back now that the election is behind us. but you talked about 2016. already we are seeing that if you look at the age breakdown, 45%, almost half of those who were in that 18 to 29 age group said they were lobbied on-line through social media by friends or family to vote for one candidate or the other. if you were over 65 it's only 11%. as that population ages it will come second nature for people to engage, lobby, share politics on-line. >> what i found interesting was that people would actually say what they voted for. it used to be there was this cloak of secrecy. no one would really say what they voted for. >> privacy of the voting, the curtain is pulled, nobody know its. >> nothing is private as we said on the internet many times. >> it's interesting that you mention people unfriending
over this. because that tends to intensify the fact that the people you talk to in your circle are more and more like you, which is what people without buy eyeballs on-line really want. >> they do. >> suarez: the idea that you're like a lot of other people who are in your group. >> therefore, if you put the add on one person's facebook page it's more likely to be shared and shared and shared again and again, with the people who are their friends. >> lauryn, howard, good to see you both. >> you too. >> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day: hamas militants fired rockets at jerusalem, and the israeli military called up reservists and massed tanks on the gaza border. and u.s. congressional leaders met with president obama and voiced hope they'll reach agreement on avoiding the fiscal cliff. and online, an update on the health care law. kwame holman explains how to find out if your state is
building an insurance exchange. >> holman: use our map to discover which states are setting up their own plans, and which have asked for federal assistance. that's on "the rundown." on "making sense, economics correspondent paul solman compares the federal budget to how a family makes its budget. plus, nova takes viewers inside the mega-storm called hurricane sandy. it airs sunday on most pbs stations. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. judy. >> woodruff: and that's the newshour for tonight. on monday, we'll look at president obama's trip to the southeast asian nation of myanmar, where he'll meet with opposition leader and nobel prize winner aung sang su kyi. i'm judy woodruff. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. "washington week" with gwen ifill can be seen later this evening on most pbs stations. after that, ray hosts tonight's edition of "need to know." the topic-- this year's record- setting $6 billion of campaign spending. we'll see you online, and again here monday evening. have a nice weekend. thank you and good night.
>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> and by the bill and melinda gates foundation. dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live a healthy, productive life. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org